Cases 41 - 50 of 563
Davis v. King et al
as 4:2019cv00161
Petitioner:
Elbert Davis
Respondent:
Attorney General Jim Hood and Ronald King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jackson v. Rule et al
as 4:2019cv00158
Respondent:
Warden Barry Rule and Attorney General Jim Hood
Petitioner:
Herman Jackson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Curry v. Settlemires et al
as 3:2019cv00251
Petitioner:
Willie Earl Curry
Respondent:
Roger Settlemires and Attorney General Jim Hood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Figuereo v. Gillis et al
as 5:2019cv00084
Defendant:
Warden Shawn R. Gillis and Attorney General William P. Barr
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Petitioner:
Lorenzo Figuereo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Maggett v. Middlebrooks et al
as 4:2019cv00130
Respondent:
Scott Middlebrooks and Attorney General Jim Hood
Petitioner:
Ladell Maggett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. State of Mississippi et al
as 4:2019cv00122
Respondent:
State of Mississippi and Attorney General Jim Hood
Petitioner:
Brandon P. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pasha v. Barr et al
as 5:2019cv00067
Interested Party:
Pto Se
Defendant:
Attorney General William P. Barr, Secretary of DHS, ICE Office of Detention and Removal Office and others
Plaintiff:
Abu Bakar Muhamed Pasha
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Gevorgyan v. Barr et al
as 5:2019cv00073
Defendant:
Attorney General W. B. Barr, Director Unknown, David Rivers and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Harout Gevorgyan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Gonzalez v. Williams et al
as 3:2019cv00181
Petitioner:
Sergio Sebastian Gonzalez
Respondent:
Warden Jessie Williams and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Kidd v. Johnson et al
as 3:2019cv00184
Petitioner:
John Kidd
Respondent:
Warden Annie B. Johnson and Attorney General Jim Hood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
